Jump to content
jai127

Free Files

Recommended Posts

I'm going to posting a bunch of stuff my partner and I have from our backfiles that we used and found to be really good resources.

 

Internal Link File ---> T standards for memorization

Fem turns ---> Self explanatory 

 

I'll be dumping all of our T shells into here once I get it all organized.

Internal Link File.docx

Fem turns.docx

  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'neg can't concede to aff fw'

 

this is the part of LD that sucks. 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the files, but I reallllllyyyyy hope you didn't ever read the Kant shell, argument overload shell (Sorry but this shell is either for use in front of a lay judge or pretty bad), the must have cards shell (fyi most novices could answer this), the neg must have advocacy shell, or the citations shell.

 

EDIT: I saw you referred to theory shells as T shells, is that just the way your team/area refers to theory?

 

 

Also kind of unrelated, but why is it that every policy theory backfile I see is full of terrible arguments? not these ones in particular, but do people actually read their theory arguments from these backfiles? (ex: "non topicality is impossible to answer because they could pick the rez to be "genocide is immoral" and I would have to defend otherwise")

Edited by goodatthis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the files, but I reallllllyyyyy hope you didn't ever read the Kant shell, argument overload shell (Sorry but this shell is either for use in front of a lay judge or pretty bad), the must have cards shell (fyi most novices could answer this), the neg must have advocacy shell, or the citations shell.

 

EDIT: I saw you referred to theory shells as T shells, is that just the way your team/area refers to theory?

 

 

Also kind of unrelated, but why is it that every policy theory backfile I see is full of terrible arguments? not these ones in particular, but do people actually read their theory arguments from these backfiles? (ex: "non topicality is impossible to answer because they could pick the rez to be "genocide is immoral" and I would have to defend otherwise")

This is all from LD. I've always been exposed to calling theory T, but most people in policy equate T=Topicality. Kant kinda made sense when I'm debating LD tho :P. I always used T strategically to eat up their time and so I could just spread my ableism K and have them drop some internal links to some really big impacts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is flashing not required in LD?

It's a common practice on the circuit, but you don't have to. There's not too much of a difference between flowing off a laptop and flowing from listening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a common practice on the circuit, but you don't have to. There's not too much of a difference between flowing off a laptop and flowing from listening.

^. And most judges will probably dock speaks off your ballot if you don't flash.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These are generic looking enough I'm wondering why you put them into different files.

It used to lag when I put all of my theory shells in one doc. I think it got to 300-400 pages at one point since I combined it with my generic answers files. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a common practice on the circuit, but you don't have to. There's not too much of a difference between flowing off a laptop and flowing from listening.

Flowing from listening is preferable, a lot of debaters I've judged will miss that teams just didn't read cards or arguments and waste time responding.

 

That being said, flashing is so you can inspect and quote their evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^. And most judges will probably dock speaks off your ballot if you don't flash.

and if you read any of these shells kek 

 

'D) Kids get kicked out of college and lose any hope of gaining a valuable education after that for this kind of stuff. Vote him down to make sure he remembers this round and won’t screw himself over in the future. '

 

'i voted off the aff's future college education'

 

Edited by KimJongUn
  • Upvote 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and if you read any of these shells kek 

 

'D) Kids get kicked out of college and lose any hope of gaining a valuable education after that for this kind of stuff. Vote him down to make sure he remembers this round and won’t screw himself over in the future. '

 

'i voted off the aff's future college education'

 

 

Which shell is that from LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Flowing from listening is preferable, a lot of debaters I've judged will miss that teams just didn't read cards or arguments and waste time responding.

 

That being said, flashing is so you can inspect and quote their evidence.

nobody flows this shit unless you're fucking Richard Shmikler or a first year out that wants to make PDI's best judges list, they just scribble on their flow paper and if both teams go all in on theory flip a coin and make up some bullshit

 

accurate depiction of LD theory:

http://newinda2.blogspot.com/2014/11/rock-bottom-debater-reads-theory-aff.html

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm so tempted to delete this thread because the random selection of files I opened were all fucking terrible.

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm so tempted to delete this thread because the random selection of files I opened were all fucking terrible.

Wait, your answer to intrinsic perms isn't 500 words long?

  • Upvote 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm so tempted to delete this thread because the random selection of files I opened were all fucking terrible.

I just copied and pasted the theory folder from our team google drive. 

 

RIP

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"...Non-existent alternatives destroy reciprocity because my opponent gets to nit-pick problems with my AC without giving me an alternative advocacy to solve for my own harms. This puts me at a structural disadvantage because now not only do I need to identify a problem, I also have to figure out a way to solve it, while all the neg has to do is show that the problem exists."

 

Damnit I knew all along that DAs were fucking abusive, how dare they pick out problems with my advocacy

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...